Smith v. Lamont Is Not Over: The Judge Ruled on Neither Side of the Constitutional Question

A federal judge dismissed the original complaint in Smith v. Lamont last month. But the lawsuit did not end there, and the ruling did not declare Connecticut’s social equity licensing system constitutional.

Brant Smith filed an amended complaint on September 28. A Massachusetts cannabis company has since asked to join the challenge. The court has scheduled another conference for October 22.

Those developments matter. Reporting the dismissal without explaining what followed leaves the public with an incomplete picture.

What the judge actually decided

On September 22, U.S. District Judge Vernon D. Oliver dismissed Smith’s original complaint “without prejudice,” expressly allowing him to file an amended complaint by October 21.

In plain language, Smith was given an opportunity to address the problems the judge identified and continue pursuing the case.

The original complaint did not sufficiently explain why Smith failed to qualify for social equity status, how his exclusion resulted from discrimination against interstate commerce, or how the requested court order would fix his injury.

The judge also found that Smith had not alleged the kind of interstate economic activity protected by the constitutional provision he invoked.

These were substantive problems with how Smith presented his claim. They were not a ruling that Connecticut’s challenged licensing restrictions are constitutional.

Smith filed a revised complaint before the deadline

The September 28 amended complaint adds allegations aimed at those deficiencies.

Smith now expressly alleges that he exceeds the social equity income threshold and does not meet the required residency history in a disproportionately impacted area. He also alleges that Connecticut has never held a lottery for the full-scale, non-social-equity cultivation licenses he seeks.

The revised complaint describes his intended participation in interstate cannabis commerce, including products he argues qualify as hemp under federal law but fall under Connecticut’s marijuana licensing requirements.

Those are Smith’s allegations, not facts the judge has accepted as proven. Whether they overcome the earlier ruling remains unresolved.

The amended complaint names Consumer Protection Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli as the defendant. Although the case remains commonly known as Smith v. Lamont, Governor Ned Lamont and Attorney General William Tong are no longer named defendants in that complaint.

An out-of-state grower is asking to join

On October 13, Twisted Growers LLC, a licensed Massachusetts cannabis cultivator, filed a motion to intervene.

That means the company is asking the judge for permission to become a plaintiff. It has not yet been admitted, according to the supplied docket.

Its proposed claim brings a different position to the case: an existing out-of-state cannabis business alleging that Connecticut’s residency requirements prevent it from competing for the cultivation opportunity it seeks.

That distinction matters because the original dismissal focused heavily on Smith’s failure to connect his own circumstances to discrimination against interstate commerce.

Twisted Growers’ filing does not automatically cure Smith’s claims or guarantee either challenger a victory. It does introduce a proposed plaintiff whose out-of-state status directly addresses a central issue in the litigation.

The state did not win every argument

The September ruling also rejected the argument that federal marijuana prohibition puts state cannabis markets beyond this constitutional scrutiny.

Judge Oliver explained that binding Second Circuit precedent makes the dormant Commerce Clause applicable to state marijuana regulation. In everyday terms, federal cannabis restrictions do not automatically excuse discriminatory state market rules.

That does not establish that Connecticut’s rules violate the Constitution. It does mean the state cannot avoid the issue simply by pointing to federal prohibition.

What happens next

Cafferelli is seeking another motion to dismiss. Smith opposes that effort and argues that his amended complaint addresses the court’s concerns. A prefiling conference is scheduled for October 22, and responses to Twisted Growers’ intervention request are due November 3.

As of October 16, the litigation remains active. The original complaint was dismissed, a revised complaint was filed, and another business is seeking to join.

Neither side has obtained a final ruling on whether the challenged social equity licensing restrictions are constitutional.